Connect with us

உலகம்

Slavery reparations are just, but who exactly owes whom?

Published

on

Some African elites benefited from slave trade and colonisation. This must be taken into account in reparation debates.

On March 25, the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the United Nations General Assembly passed a landmark resolution. Proposed by Ghana, it recognised the transatlantic slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity” and called for reparations. A total of 123 countries supported the resolution; three opposed it, including the United States and Israel, while 52 abstained, Britain among them, and several European Union countries.

The UN’s slavery resolution is a historic moment, but what comes next is even more important. Leading up to the resolution, the African Union urged its 55 member states to pursue slavery reparations through formal apologies, the return of stolen artefacts, financial compensation, and guarantees of non-repetition.

This raises a question the resolution does not directly ask: reparations from whom, and to whom? If the answer is simply from European governments to African governments, then the reparations movement risks ignoring the long history of European engagement with Africa, and in doing so delivering justice to the wrong people.

The contemporary framing of the reparations debate is seductive in its simplicity: Europeans arrived in Africa, Africans were enslaved, Europeans grew rich, and Africans became impoverished. Therefore, Europe owes Africa. This narrative carries moral force, but it risks flattening the complex history of European engagement with the continent.

While European actors undeniably drove the demand for enslaved labour, African political and economic elites were not passive victims. They played a significant role in capturing, transporting and selling enslaved people to European traders.

In some cases, African states, seeking to expand their treasuries and consolidate territorial power, preyed on neighbouring communities, condemning them to enslavement for profit. The Oyo Empire, a powerful Yoruba state in what is now south-western Nigeria, expanded significantly in the eighteenth century through its participation in this commerce. Across the region, African elites who had the means sustained the system by exchanging enslaved people for European goods such as alcohol, textiles and other manufactured commodities.

None of this diminishes European culpability in the slave trade. The demand was European. The ships were European. The plantation system was European. The racialised ideology constructed to justify slavery was European. But it does complicate the story.

The transatlantic slave trade was not solely a narrative of African victimhood and European perpetration. It is a story of elite collaboration, which did not end when the slave ships stopped sailing.

The historical argument: three phases, one logic

European encounter with African societies can be understood in three broad phases, each distinct in form but similar in the underlying logic of collaborative extraction.

The first phase was slavery. Europeans extracted human labour from Africa, often with the active participation of African political rulers. Britain emerged as the world’s leading slave-trading country, transporting roughly 3.4 million Africans across the Atlantic between 1640 and 1807. The abolition of the British slave trade in 1807 marked the formal end of this phase. But abolition did not disrupt the underlying logic of the elite collaboration. It reshaped it.

The second phase was colonialism. A less understood aspect of European domination in Africa is how seamlessly some African rulers transitioned from collaborators during the slave trade to intermediaries in the colonial period.

In Nigeria, for example, regional African rulers became intermediaries for British administrators. As Nigerian historian, Moses Ochonu, demonstrates in Emirs in London, a study of Northern Nigerian Muslim aristocrats who travelled to Britain between 1920 and independence in 1960, these African figures were far from passive subjects of British rule. They actively leveraged their relationship with British authorities to reinforce their own authority at home. Such sponsored travel to the imperial centre helped solidify personal ties between Nigerian elites and British administrators, reinforcing the system of indirect rule.

The third and current phase is the postcolonial era. While formal empire has ended, the structure of elite alignment endures. In countries such as Nigeria, the majority of citizens remain largely excluded from political and economic power. The institutional successors of intermediaries and collaborators during the eras of slavery and colonial rule are now running the African postcolonial states.

Rather than dismantling extractive systems, many have repurposed them. Similar patterns of exclusion and extraction that defined earlier periods have been reproduced, leaving the majority of Africans short-changed by a system that continues to serve elite interests.

Nigerian President Bola Tinubu’s state visit to the United Kingdom last month – complete with royal ceremony, photo opportunities and symbolic gestures – reflected this relationship whose origins lie in the very history the UN resolution condemns. While the majority of Nigerians face difficult socio-economic conditions, the British government announced that Nigerian companies would create hundreds of new jobs in the UK.

This is not an anomaly but a continuation of the extractive logic that shaped the slave trade and colonialism. It endures, now recast in the language of diplomacy and partnership.

Reparations are just, and Britain’s debt is undeniable. But direction matters. If compensation flows from one set of elites to another, the oppressed majority of Africans will once again be excluded. True justice must run in two directions: from European states to formerly colonised societies, and from African elites to the citizens they continue to exploit.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/4/18/slavery-reparations-are-just-but-who-exactly-owes-whom?traffic_source=rss

உலகம்

US Jewish leader, Israel advocate Abe Foxman dies at 86

Published

on

Israeli officials hail Foxman, who led the ADL advocacy group for nearly three decades, as warm and passionate.

Prominent Jewish American leader and Israel defender Abraham “Abe” Foxman has died at age 86.

The Anti-Defamation League, the advocacy group he led for 28 years, confirmed his death on Sunday, calling him an “outspoken, passionate, and tireless advocate for the Jewish people and Israel“.

A Holocaust survivor, Foxman helped shape the conversation around Israel and anti-Semitism in the US for decades.

ADL Board Chair Nicole Munchnik said Foxman helped build the “modern liberal era of America”, describing him as a “longtime adviser” to US presidents and world leaders.

“To those of us who knew him, Abe was a warm friend, adviser, spirited antagonist and hugger – all over lunch,” Munchnik said.

Foxman joined the ADL in 1965 and served as the group’s national director from 1987 to 2015.

Under his leadership, the group – which presents itself as an anti-hate watchdog – became one of the most influential advocacy organisations in the country.

Palestinian rights advocates have long condemned the ADL, accusing it of demonising pro-Palestine activists and conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Since the start of the genocidal war on Gaza, the ADL – under Foxman’s successor Jonathan Greenblatt – has intensified its campaign against Israel’s critics.

Greenblatt, who has supported laws to penalise boycotts of Israel, compared the Palestinian keffiyeh to the Nazi swastika last year.

Foxman also remained a staunch supporter of Israel and defended its conduct during the genocidal war on Gaza.

“What is happening in Gaza is tragic. But it is not Genocide. And it is not illegal,” he wrote on X in July 2025 as Israel imposed a hunger crisis on the territory.

“War is hell and inhumane, destructive and ugly. And nations must take all possible care to avoid civilian harm. And Israel has and is doing that. Having said this, Israel still needs to act with all deliberate speed and skill to provide maximum humanitarian aid to lessen the loss of innocent civilian lives.”

Weeks before his death, Foxman backed the US-Israel war on Iran, voicing gratitude to US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for attacking the country.

“Thank you President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu for standing up to evil and jihadist extremism. The world hopefully will be a better and safer place in the future,” he said in a social media post on February 28 after the war broke out.

In March, Foxman warned about what he described as the rise of anti-Semitism on the right and left of the political spectrum in the US, hitting out at liberal politicians publicly distancing themselves from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

“If a politician doesn’t want to take money from AIPAC, don’t take money from AIPAC, but don’t make taking money from AIPAC a morality test – because that continues to build the conspiracy theory that there is a Jewish lobby that controls America,” he told the Jewish Standard.

AIPAC, which backs the war on Iran, has been spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns to defeat Israel’s critics in US elections.

Last year, Foxman sounded the alarm about the dwindling support for Israel in the US, underscoring the importance of the alliance between the two countries for Israel.

“We’re in a propaganda war, and to an extent, we’re losing the propaganda war, and I worry about losing America,” Foxman told Times of Israel.

“It’s scary, looking at the polls, the Sunday television shows, the major newspapers – there is so much out there that is anti-Israel.”

Despite his assertion, rights advocates often decry the absence of Palestinian perspectives on TV shows in the US media.

In 2021, Foxman announced that he was cancelling his New York Times subscription after the newspaper published a front page featuring the photos of dozens of Palestinian children killed by Israel in Gaza.

“Today’s blood libel of Israel and the Jewish people on the front page is enough,” he said at that time.

Tributes in Israel and the US poured in for Foxman on Sunday.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said he was “deeply saddened” by the death of Foxman.

“A towering voice against antisemitism, Abe devoted his life to defending the Jewish people and strengthening the bond between Israel and Jewish communities worldwide,” Saar said on X.

Israel’s President Isaac Herzog also called Foxman a “legendary leader of the Jewish people”.

“He was a passionate Zionist, a humanist, and an outspoken, wise friend,” Herzog said.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/5/10/us-jewish-leader-israel-advocate-abe-foxman-dies-at-86?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

உலகம்

Israeli weapon fires tiny metal cubes into people in Lebanon, like Gaza

Published

on

Israeli weapon fires tiny metal cubes into people in Lebanon, like Gaza

The same tiny tungsten cubes that spray out of Israeli bombs, causing devastating internal injuries to people in Gaza are being found in wounded civilians in Lebanon, war surgeon Dr Tahir Mohammed says. He draws parallels between what Israel is doing in both places and describes the weapons as “indiscriminate”.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/5/10/israeli-weapon-fires-tiny-metal-cubes-into-people-in-lebanon-like-gaza?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

உலகம்

Trump to discuss Iran with Xi Jinping during China visit: Officials

Published

on

Official says US president will likely ‘apply pressure’ on China over Beijing’s purchase of Iranian oil amid war.

Donald Trump is set to arrive in Beijing on Wednesday evening to discuss the Iran war and other issues with his Chinese counterpart President Xi Jinping.

White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said an opening ceremony and meeting will be on Thursday morning, and the trip will conclude on Friday. The US plans to host the Chinese leader during a reciprocal visit later this year.

Kelly said that this week’s trip would be of “tremendous symbolic significance” and focus on “rebalancing the relationship with China and prioritising reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence”.

Trump’s visit, initially scheduled for earlier this year but postponed in March due to the US-Israel war on Iran, comes as the US president struggles to contain the fallout from the war, both at home and abroad.

A senior administration official told news outlets in an anonymous briefing on Sunday that Trump could “apply pressure” to China on Iran in areas such as oil sales and Tehran’s purchase of potential dual-role military-civilian goods.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week accused China of “funding” Iran.

“Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and China has been buying 90 percent of their energy, so they are funding the largest state sponsor of terrorism,” Bessent told Fox News.

Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to US-Israeli attacks, restricting passage through a key artery of global energy transport.

China has said that it wants to see the war end and hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arraghchi last week. At the same time, Beijing has refused to recognise Washington’s “unilateral” sanctions on Iran’s oil sector.

Disruptions stemming from the war have disrupted the global economy, with Asian states that depend on imports from the Middle East especially hard hit.

Trump could also bring up China’s support for Russia during the talks, along with trade and rare earth minerals, a vital resource for the US tech sector. Business executives from aerospace manufacturer Boeing and a handful of agricultural companies are set to travel with the US delegation.

The anonymous administration official said that no change was expected regarding the US stance on Taiwan, a main sticking point in relations between Washington and Beijing. China considers the self-ruling island a part of its territory, but the US has deep security and economic commitments to Taiwan.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/5/10/trump-to-discuss-iran-with-xi-jinping-during-china-visit-officials?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 by 7Tamil Media, All rights reserved.